...
Pentax has never been in the rangefinder game and are largely responsible for the rise of SLR photography so wishing they would move towards a niche format like RF is a dream that will likely never happen...

Really not too far off from an Evil camera that also lacks a Penta(x)-prism. Either way it's a new direction. If they build something that is really no different than the other guys, then why would we expect the masses to choose them over the others. They should just embrace the things that make them different. For me, that is there prime lens lineup, and a rangefinder would compliment that perfectly. The only meaningful difference between a rangefinder with OVF and an Evil, is the viewfinder. Let's be honest, Pentax doesn't have a whole lot of experience in the EVF market either.

Really not too far off from an Evil camera that also lacks a Penta(x)-prism. Either way it's a new direction. If they build something that is really no different than the other guys, then why would we expect the masses to choose them over the others. They should just embrace the things that make them different. For me, that is there prime lens lineup, and a rangefinder would compliment that perfectly. The only difference between a Rangefinder with OVF and an Evil is the viewfinder, and let's be honest, Pentax doesn't have a whole lot of experience in the EVF market either.

no the focus mechanism on an RF is a mechanical coupling it is vastly different and far more complex with issues of parallax distortion to consider never mind keeping it properly aligned - which then creates compatability issues for building adapters. An EVF gives the ability to take advantage of all the modern perks like AF and historograms and to also be able to MF more effectively provided the EVF is of sufficient pixel density and has a zoom option. I love rangefinders (and on the verge of buying another - medium format next time) but I don't see it as the solution. a machine that pays tribute to the design but takes into account the modern world will be far more successful (look at the response to the x100 - though i still see a lot of griping on RFF about deficiencies when the bloody thing hasn't even been finalized lol)
Would I like to see a rangefinder that took limiteds (perhaps in LTM mount form like the very limited DA43 )and supported LTM and M mount sure would, never gonna happen though

edit ; Pentax doesn't have a whole lot of experience in the sensor or lcd market either doesn't stop them sourcing to their own spec

Really not too far off from an Evil camera that also lacks a Penta(x)-prism. Either way it's a new direction. If they build something that is really no different than the other guys, then why would we expect the masses to choose them over the others. They should just embrace the things that make them different. For me, that is there prime lens lineup, and a rangefinder would compliment that perfectly. The only difference between a Rangefinder with OVF and an Evil is the viewfinder, and let's be honest, Pentax doesn't have a whole lot of experience in the EVF market either.

A camera with this complex OVF design will never be for the masses as it will be very expensive to manufacture. All other manufacturers choose to make mirrorless cameras with as few mechanical parts as possible as development on electronics advance very fast, and gets cheaper.

A camera with this complex OVF design will never be for the masses as it will be very expensive to manufacture. All other manufacturers choose to make mirrorless cameras with as few mechanical parts as possible as development on electronics advance very fast, and gets cheaper.

exactly and with the rate of development happening now on EVF thanks to evil and cameras like the lx5 EVF is the logical path and should within a couple of years be better than OVF in a lot of ways

no the focus mechanism on an RF is a mechanical coupling it is vastly different and far more complex with issues of parallax distortion to consider never mind keeping it properly aligned - which then creates compatability issues for building adapters. An EVF gives the ability to take advantage of all the modern perks like AF and historograms and to also be able to MF more effectively provided the EVF is of sufficient pixel density and has a zoom option. I love rangefinders (and on the verge of buying another - medium format next time) but I don't see it as the solution. a machine that pays tribute to the design but takes into account the modern world will be far more successful (look at the response to the x100 - though i still see a lot of griping on RFF about deficiencies when the bloody thing hasn't even been finalized lol)
Would I like to see a rangefinder that took limiteds (perhaps in LTM mount form like the very limited DA43 )and supported LTM and M mount sure would, never gonna happen though

edit ; Pentax doesn't have a whole lot of experience in the sensor or lcd market either doesn't stop them sourcing to their own spec

I agree, never gonna happen. I also agree that I'm downplaying some complexities to the rangefinder mechanism, but rangefinders have been around for a long time. If they wanted to do it, they could do it. Auto focus rangefinders already exist, and I can't imagine it being any worse than contrast auto-focus. They could always use the rangefinder for manual focus only and use contrast focusing for the auto-focus. Plus that Screen is always there for the odd lens, tripod use, etc. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I see absolutely no reason for me to even consider an Evil that is just like Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony, EVF or not. I can't speak for anyone, but myself though.

A camera with this complex OVF design will never be for the masses as it will be very expensive to manufacture. All other manufacturers choose to make mirrorless cameras with as few mechanical parts as possible as development on electronics advance very fast, and gets cheaper.

Yes, I agree, but I don't personally think of Pentax as a mass market brand. 645D comes to mind. Don't the other guys already have the tweeners covered well enough anyway? What can Pentax bring to the table here that will make their camera sell more than the other guy's?

Yes, I agree, but I don't personally think of Pentax as a mass market brand. 645D comes to mind. Don't the other guys already have the tweeners covered well enough anyway? What can Pentax bring to the table here that will make their camera sell more than the other guy's?

the 645D could be mass market for it's intended market though. it's price also covers the r&D with the smaller market. Hence the $7000 leica M9. take away the Leica name and for sure the price comes down, but it would still be a marginal market item if it had to retail at $2500-3000 with a starter lens, not an unrealistic projection if you look at rd1 prices and the like)
there are a lot of very interesting patents out there right now from the other guys (Nikon interchangeable sensors Olympus modular bodies), Pentax patents are pretty quiet, so I have a hard time seeing where they are headed

the 645D could be mass market for it's intended market though. it's price also covers the r&D with the smaller market. Hence the $7000 leica M9. take away the Leica name and for sure the price comes down, but it would still be a marginal market item if it had to retail at $2500-3000 with a starter lens, not an unrealistic projection if you look at rd1 prices and the like)
there are a lot of very interesting patents out there right now from the other guys (Nikon interchangeable sensors Olympus modular bodies), Pentax patents are pretty quiet, so I have a hard time seeing where they are headed

Why does an optical viewfinder and rangefinder have to bump the cost up to $2-3000? I know that's what the competitors charge, but Pentax is able to offer an arguably more advanced medium format camera at lower prices than the current competition. Again, I know it's not gonna happen, but if Pentax bring out a camera that is just like the other guys, it will get buried. It'll definitely be dead on arrival for me if it's just a "me too" camera.

Yes, I agree, but I don't personally think of Pentax as a mass market brand. 645D comes to mind. Don't the other guys already have the tweeners covered well enough anyway? What can Pentax bring to the table here that will make their camera sell more than the other guy's?

Pentax can make mirrorless cameras that has the same qualities as on other types of cameras they make.
Smaller, weather-sealed cameras with great ergonomics and functions with photography in mind.

Why does an optical viewfinder and rangefinder have to bump the cost up to $2-3000? I know that's what the competitors charge, but Pentax is able to offer an arguably more advanced medium format camera at lower prices than the current competition.

Most other (maybe all) MF manufacturer do only develop MF cameras, so all R&D cost has to be covered when they sell limited numbers of MF cameras.
Pentax has the advantage of re-using many things developed for APS-C on 645D, so they do not have as high R&D cost to be covered by 645D sales.

For Pentax to design a RF will probably take a big hit on R&D budget, but to implement EVF will not cost much in R&D, especially as they already has experience from live-view.

Most other (maybe all) MF manufacturer do only develop MF cameras, so all R&D cost has to be covered when they sell limited numbers of MF cameras.
Pentax has the advantage of re-using many things developed for APS-C on 645D, so they do not have as high R&D cost to be covered by 645D sales.

Mamiya and Contax(now dead, but still works with digital) both had other cameras, and the Mamiyas/Phase bodies have changed very little. The majority of the expense is the backs and because it's basically a pro only market. I'd say Pentax probably had more R&D than Mamiya does, but Mamiya probably has a better support network; I wouldn't know for sure though.

Originally posted by Fogel70

For Pentax to design a RF will probably take a big hit on R&D budget, but to implement EVF will not cost much in R&D, especially as they already has experience from live-view.

I'd be willing to pay as much as a K-5, for example. I wouldn't see it as a replacement, but an alternative for someone with an SLR that doesn't want to carry an SLR all the time. EVF is still not mature, otherwise we wouldn't still see glass penta-prisms in high end cameras. Anyway, like I said, I wouldn't make a good business man.

Saw a rumor today that Nikon is going to intro an EVIL in April. And it's not going to be an entry level camera but instead be aimed at pros. Can Canon be far behind? And why would Pentax want to enter a market flooded with bigger competitors and not very popular outside of Japan?

That with a zoom OVF would be pretty amazing! Maybe not possible, but cool. If I get a new digital, that Fuji is looking like a nice fit for what I want, just wish you could change the lens... the one it has is probably pretty dang good though.

Saw a rumor today that Nikon is going to intro an EVIL in April. And it's not going to be an entry level camera but instead be aimed at pros. Can Canon be far behind? And why would Pentax want to enter a market flooded with bigger competitors and not very popular outside of Japan?

Nikons not a rumour they have a ton of patents already
Canon hasnt filed one afaik
Ive actually heard even earlier than that but yep they have stated the intention to target a pro market so likely pretty damn pricey as well
Sony will also probably introduce the nex 7 which is rumoured to be much better built and targetted more high end
Not much room left for the pentax something nobody else has done with no real patents even appearing yet beyond a sketchy obn camera flash design
Either they are playing it pretty close to their chest or they are still a lobg way from a model